What's Right Among the Right

~The Philosophical Angle~ I'd like to start by establishing the concept of objective truth as it would apply in being "right" and working towards it.

What is an "Objective Truth"?

It's a truth that remains true regardless any opinions, feelings, or subjective narratives that would imply otherwise. However, as the human condition is so heavily saturated with opinion, emotion, narrative etc, it's close to impossible to know you've found objective truth regarding most topics. Nonetheless, you should strive to achieve it. It's a similar concept as striving to perfection. It can't be reached in some ways, but striving to it is the most effective way to self-improvement.

You oftentimes can't be sure that you're absolutely and objectively right, but properly taking steps to get close to it will eventually ensure confidence in any given topic you're attempting to understand.

So what is the best way to work towards objective truth? The key is to be be wrong enough times. Yeah, you read that right. To put it more eloquently, the key is to participate in discussion and debate on whatever topic you wish to seek objective truth in as often as possible and then to learn from each instance of being wrong.

Even if you're unsure of any current position you're taking, participate in the discussion of it often and don't pull, or be afraid to take, any punches. You need to engage in discussion in such a way that your opposition would take you seriously enough to prove you wrong to the fullest extent. This does not mean acting as though you know you're right, but really about aggressively questioning what your opponent thinks is right.

So what if you lose? Is your whole world going to fall apart? No, in fact, it's the opposite, as you've just learned something new and now you can see things from a new and possibly better perspective. When you're wrong, you shouldn't stay wrong, right? So don't.

If someone proved you wrong, you should put yourself through the three phases of R's:

-Reflect -Reconsider -Resolve

Reflect on the conversation. Make sure you understand what happened. Try to understand where you went wrong and where they went right. Sometimes, after much reflection, you might realize that you weren't wrong at all, only that you failed to defend your position. Then you can come back to that discussion with a stronger argument than last time.

Reconsider your position. Decide whether or not, based on your reflection, you should change, alter, or shift your position. This doesn't always mean a flip-flop to the other side. Oftentimes it only results in defending your position differently.

Resolve on the new position, if reconsidered. Decide how, in the future, you will make a case for it. Congratulations! By being wrong and reflecting on it, you're now one step closer to objective truth.

The lesson in this is simple: To embrace being wrong as one step closer to being right, instead of being unwavering and stubborn. Eventually, you will reach a point where it becomes harder and harder to be proven wrong and finally a point where you can't fathom losing a debate in certain areas.

~The Logical Angle~ In this part, I want to detail mostly fallacies and some other logical aspects of debate that you should keep in mind when in a discussion or debate. This will be, by far, the largest portion of this write. Focusing on combating and not committing these fallacies will strengthen your ability to be objective tenfold.

So what is a fallacy? It's quite simply a flaw in logic. This means that when someone commits one of these flaws in logic, you can use these terms to help identify and capitalize on them. You should also try your absolute best to never use one. The more you use, the weaker your argument becomes. It applies to you just as much as it applies to them, whether they call you out on it or not. After all, the goal is objective truth, NOT confirmation bias!

There are categorized types & terms of fallacies that I will go through. There are actually countless terms (Over 100 at least) for types of fallacies that can be committed, but I have put together the most common and most perilous ones to use.

Red Herrings This is a categorization as well as a fallacy itself. There are many fallacies that fall under the category of Red Herring, but it is also its own fallacy as well.

A Red Herring is an attempt to distract you from your premises entirely. Ever watch cartoons where one character points and says "What's that over there?!" before they proceed to attack them while their head is turned? That's what a Red Herring is, but with words.

A Red Herring can start as one statement, but it often lures you out and becomes a long-term strategy that works effectively you if you let it. It needs to be stifled before it really begins.

Here is an example

Jack: You cheated on me! Jill: No I didn't! Jack: I have pictures of it! Jill: You're so clingy!

Jack needs to be careful where he takes this conversation next. "You're so clingy" is the Red Herring. Her goal is to get him to argue with her about how he is or isn't clingy, rather than have to address the incriminating evidence he's holding.

Don't defend yourself against a Red Herring. Stick to your premise, your facts, and your evidence. Either wave it away/ignore it or call it out. Jacks best move is to just ignore it and re-assert his evidence.

Ad Hominem attacks Ad Hominem is a type of Red Herring. It's quite simply the act of trying to attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. This most commonly includes name-calling, but can also be in the form of calling someones character into question in a way that is in no way relevant to the discussion.

Some say that it's possible for an Ad Hominem to not be a fallacy. The way I see it, is if that persons character is somehow relevant to the discussion, then they're doing both of attacking character AND answering the argument, making it not Ad Hominem at all.

Remember that Ad Hominem is a Red Herring and thus you need to keep your response to it as simple and concise as possible. Otherwise, it worked.

The Stawman This is another very common type of Red Herring, but it can sometimes be hard to recognize.

A Strawman is when someone conjures up a false image of either you or your argument and they attack that image. It's sort of a "Voo-doo Doll" argument of sorts where they create their own version of you or your argument and attack it as though it was exactly you or your argument.

Ever heard of the saying "Putting words in my mouth"? This is a response to a common Strawman. Someone is making up a dialogue/narrative and acting as though it came from you. Then they attack that dialogue/narrative and explain how wrong it is, even though you said or implied no such thing.

The best response to any Strawman is to either call it out as such or just respond in some form resembling "I said/believe no such thing".

Remember that a Strawman is a Red Herring and thus you need to keep your response to it as simple and concise as possible. Otherwise, it worked.

The no-man's Strawman This is one that I coined myself. It's the type of Strawman where they conjure up an opinion or collective that either doesn't exist or isn't as common as they're implying in order to "Paint with Broad Strokes" and therefor include you. Then they, of course, attack it as though it applies to you.

The typical appropriate response to this is along the lines of "I never said or implied that I believe that, nor do I know of anyone else who claims to believe such a thing either".

Cherry Picking Cherry Picking is when someone takes something out-of-context and then misconstrue it as meaning something different than it did while in context.

You see this often when there's a discussion of Bible verses. The most common example being "Thou shall not judge". The Bible does not disallow Christians from judging others, rather, this particular passage is pointing out that they shouldn't judge unless they want to be judged the same. This is also augmented by the many passages in the Bible that involve God commanding man to judge, but to judge justly. This doesn't stop the secular crowd from throwing "Thou shall not judge" around as a cherry picked witty one-liner though (Thought-terminating Cliche).

Cherry Picking can also apply to your own argument. Imagine you've spent a few hours putting together an argument. It's four large paragraphs and there are many good points made. Then watch as your opponent Cherry Picks and chooses which parts to respond to and portrays them differently than you intended.

Fallacy of a Single Cause The Single-Cause Fallacy is when an opponent ignores all other causing factors but one. Here is an example

Jill: Young adults nowdays are so entitled. Jack: It's all because their parents didn't whoop them. Jill: Well, it's also because of government hand-outs, progressive propaganda, "everyone gets a trophy" mentality, etc. Jack: No, it's only because their parents didn't whoop them.

Someone who is doing this has a narrative that they hold dear. They want to keep that narrative clean and unchallenged. So when you present the idea that there are many contributing factors or causes to a problem, they will act as though they're wrong or insignificant.

That said, the best way to re-assert your position that it's not just one or a few causes is to figure out what that narrative is and in what way it's fragile.

In this example above, Jacks narrative is that if more parents whooped their kids, all of the entitlement issues would go away. While it's hard for some (including me) to disagree entirely with it, it's still ignoring all other contributing factors mentioned and likely more. The best course of action for Jill to take is to talk about how each and every factor lead to entitlement issues.

Fallaciously Using Semantics Semantics means discussing what something means or an argument based on the meaning of something. As far as this writing goes, I am going to outline how people use semantics as a logical fallacy.

Some people use a tactic that can be described as "I know what you mean, but I'm going to attack what you said as though it meant something else". This person is intentionally "Taking it the wrong way" in order to take a higher moral ground and be disingenuous.

This can be a very tough spot to be in, because responding to it can be a Red Herring that you have no choice but to respond to in-full. The best advice I can give you is to form your argument in such a way that it can't or more likely wouldn't be used against you this way.

Proving Negatives & Burden of Proof You may have seen written or heard, in some form, a response along the lines of "You're trying to make me prove a negative". The person trying to make someone prove a negative is likely using fallacious logic. What does it mean exactly? It has to do with the concept called "The Burden of Proof".

Jack: Well, I have an invisible unicorn in my backyard and only I can see or hear it. Prove to me that it doesn't exist. Jill: But... how?

Jill can't prove that something doesn't exist. However, she CAN lay the burden of proof on him. If someone makes a claim that requires proving a negative to dispute, they must prove their claim is either true or give a compelling argument that it has merit. This is called having the "Burden of Proof".

The Machine-Gun Tactic This is another one I've coined myself, as I haven't found any official term or name referencing it.

Sometimes you run into a subject, like Flat-Earth theory, where skepticism leads a person to start asking endless questions and presenting endless new premises. Now, asking those questions is healthy and trying to get answers to them is as well. The problem is that sometimes this person is not willing to accept any answers. Instead of acknowledging that their question was answered and going through "The Three R's", they cast it aside and move onto one of their other questions or premises among their bag of endless questions and premises. The debate goes on and on endlessly.

Although the person asking the questions feels victorious by barraging their opponent relentlessly with what they call a mountain of evidence, it's just a mountain of curiosity and skepticism, not evidence.

You combat this by refusing to continue the discussion until they can follow through with one question or piece of evidence at a time without changing the subject or presenting a new premise. Let this person know that if they cannot uphold one single piece of evidence or claim, then the rest is thrown out.

Appeal to the stone Appeal to the Stone or Ad Lapidem is when someone dismisses a claim or premise as absurd (or something along the lines of absurd) without providing any explanation, evidence, or argument for why or how they believe it is.

Jill: Strict gun laws have actually been shown to lead to increased crime rates. Jack: That's just stupid.

Jacks response allows everyone who agrees with him to just fill in the blanks for him. He doesn't have to make an argument and neither does anyone supporting his position.

This happens for one of two reasons. Either Jack is too lazy to support his position with an argument (And you know, sometimes we just don't feel like it) or he's insecure about his position and thus the fear of being disputed holds him back.

Combating this is easy. You ask them why and assert that they've made no argument.

Jill: Why is it stupid? You don't even have an argument.

Some vs most vs all and the truth about the True Scotsman (Painting with Broad Strokes) This one can really have blurry lines. The general rule is that you shouldn't conflate the minority of a group with the majority.

The lines get blurry when the entirety of the group are lead by a fundamental idea or set of ideas that fostered the creation of that minority. One could argue that those fundamental ideas need to either be abolished or reformed, but it would still be fallacious to conflate the majority with the minority.

The True Scotsman defense is always considered a fallacy by most, but I have a different opinion about that. I do find that in some circumstances, disowning an extreme minority as not representing your collective is not too often a logically flawed position. If you don't have a strong and rigid argument supporting your taking of that position, then it's a fallacy. However, if you can argue that this person has defined characteristics that set them apart from your collective, then you're certainly not committing any fallacy.

The Thought-Terminating Cliche A thought-terminating cliche is a one-liner that functions as an over-simplified "end of discussion" position. It effectively attempts to dismiss the entire argument that has been had up to that point, whether they were winning or losing.

The basic template for this tactic goes like so- Jack: *Makes a very detailed and impressive argument against Jill* Jill: "Cliche One-liner", so your whole argument is invalid.

This one actually flies under the radar more than you might think. It usually ends up as a Red Herring more often than it works as intended, because the opponent will likely try to aggressively tackle it.

Here are some commonly used Thought-terminating Cliche's -Older persons saying that young adults (Emphasis on "adults") don't understand yet -The secular belief "morality is subjective" used to defend any kind of morally questionable position. -Dismissal by the Collective (Read about that next) can fall under this -"Thou shall not judge" as an attempt to shut down Christians -"You have your opinion, I have mine" -"We have to agree to disagree then"

The best way to combat this is simply to recap the debate up to that point or reassert your position and pretty much ignore the cliche. Also end with reasserting whatever position the cliche was meant to be an answer to. Likely, the cliche was thrown at you because they had no answer to it, so re-assert it.

Jack: *Makes a very detailed and impressive argument against Jill* Jill: "Cliche One-liner", so your whole argument is invalid. Jack: So you started by saying (This) and I said (That). I reasoned (This) and you responded with (That), and then came my argument that you haven't answered yet. How does saying (The cliche) change any of that?

Dismissal by the Collective (You're not part of this collective, so your argument is invalid)

This is essentially another Thought-terminating Cliche that has taken on a life of its own, so I've coined a term for it. It's when someone says that you not being affected by something or not being part of a relevant collective makes your entire argument invalid.

Jack: The poor need more help from the government. Jill: You're not poor, so you can't understand.

This is a fallacy, because Jack could have ways of understanding the situation of the poor without actually being poor. He could base his position on statistics, evidence, studies, or things he has learned from being friends or acquaintances of poor people.

How you combat this is simply to explain how you understand this position without being of that collective or without being affected by it. If after that they still insist on reasserting that fallacy, just call the fallacy out. Tell them their argument is fallacious and let them know that you don't think they have a real argument.

When the outcome of a solution will be worse than the problem Oftentimes, people embrace ideas or solutions that end up causing or leading to problems far worse than the problems they were meant to solve.

Don't argue for a solution without considering the repercussions of the situation. Try to think about, step-by-step, how things would transpire if your idea or solution were implemented. That includes thinking about all of the ways it could go wrong.

If your solution is political in nature, think about how it can be perverted. How could someone who has selfish or nefarious intentions use this solution to their own means or to further their agenda? When you think hard about this, you'll find that a lot of political solutions, that at first seem sensible, aren't feasible without creating an equal or greater problem.

If someone is proposing a solution of this nature. Discuss how this kind of solution worked out in the past/historically. Be prepared with specific examples and how they're relevant to your situation. Step-by-Step, explain the one or maybe various ways in which an equal or greater undesirable effect could result. If you don't explain these steps well, then your opponent (As well as the audience) will just assume that you're being overly paranoid and unrealistic.

The TL;DR position Ever argue with someone online and after you've posted a well-thought-out response, they discarded it by saying they didn't or wouldn't read of all it? This includes the infamous "I stopped at..." line as well.

This is just pure concentrated laziness and the only thing you can do is to call it out as such and assert that they must not be able to defend their position and are intolerant to opposing views (A bigot).

The Disingenuous In regards to debate, this is intentional deception, rather than a fallacy. Someone is being disingenuous when they purposely leave out key factors or information on the subject that they know would hurt their position.

Jack: I didn't steal much of your food, I just took a few fries. Jill: I didn't eat any of my fries yet and they're half gone.

Jack was being disingenuous in order to appear more innocent. There's really nothing you can do to counter this other than call it for what it is and to just plain provide a strong counter-argument.

~The Strategic Angle~ The concept of a conclusion and a premise The conclusion is what you're arguing/debating about and the premises are all of the arguments made to support that conclusion.

Premises: It has four wheels, an engine, and goes vroom vroom. Conclusion: It is an automobile.

You should not only familiarize yourself with what your conclusions and premises are, but also with what your opponents conclusions and premises are as well.

Use analogies and use them a lot, but use them right I wont be providing any in-depth guide here on how to properly and effectively build an analogy that strengthens your argument, as that would take up a majority-sized portion of this writing. It's a convoluted subject in its own right and there's no way I can make it concise like all of the other information given in this writing.

What I have to say here is that you should learn to use analogies effectively, as sometimes, a proper analogy can, all by itself, shut down an argument. However, be careful, as a false-analogy can equally get you in trouble. It would demonstrate a failure in logic and therefor it would be potent ammunition for the opponent to use against you. Just be careful that you're not "comparing apples to oranges".

Arguing for merit, rather than certainty A lot of subjects are hot topics that seemingly have no certain or objectively right answer. Sometimes it's just best to argue that a position has merit first, rather than it being objectively right. Then, when your opponent has failed to prove that it, at least, doesn't have merit, you may or may not be able to start arguing for it being objective.

The existence of a God or deity is a great example. There's no objectively right answer. All you can do on that subject is to argue whether or not Gods existence or non-existence has merit. It's up to either side whether or not to accept the merit being argued for.

Don't get distracted and stick to your premises As outlined by the Logical Angle section of this writing, a Red Herring can derail the conversation and your premises could get lost in the mess that proceeds. At all times, keep asking yourself if what you're responding with is supporting or furthering your premises.

This may be short and simple advice, but it's very important.

Subjectivity vs Objectivity and the factor of emotion Understand whether or not a position you're taking is subjective or objective.

What does that mean? Being objective means that you've put your opinions and feelings on the matter aside in order to focus on the facts and the logic. Subjectivity is, of course, the opposite, with your opinions and feelings guiding your argument.

If an opponent insists on being guided by emotion, use that against them. Force them to acknowledge that their position is based on something less-rational or subjective.

To deal only in the truth, means to inevitably gravitate toward absolutes This has been a hard pill for me to swallow, personally. For a very long time I would take the middle-ground on just about everything. I'd be toting that phrase "Everything is relative & subjective" around like a big shield.

I have found over the years, however, that the more I focus on being objective and show only bias for the truth, that I've drifted further and further away from that center and have worked my way towards some absolutes. This doesn't mean to say that you should argue as though your position is absolute, only that you should not get too comfortable standing in that middle-ground or on the fence, because learning the way I have outlined will start to push you in certain directions.

Mercilessly punish your opponent when they're misinformed An opponent that is misinformed and is using misinformation that you can prove is wrong is ripe for the destroying. Don't just casually tell them they're wrong. The audience needs to know how wrong they are and they need to be exposed to the full extent.

Which brings up the next point...

It's not about the one opponent, it's about the audience and the message Trying to change the mind of the person you're debating should be a goal, but if there's an audience of any kind, it's not your highest or even second-highest priority.

Your first priority is always to learn and express the objective truth.

Your second priority is to eloquently convey your message to as many people as you can. If that means letting go of the idea of changing the opponents mind and just focusing on driving your points home, so be it. They're no more important than anyone else observing the debate, argument, or discussion.

It's quite possible that if you're arguing with someone who refuses to be objective and engage in an honest debate, that despite this, most of your audience could see their position for what it is. That would be a win for you, no matter how stubborn your opponent is.

Conjecture, assumption & fact checking Be care about making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on those assumptions. This is called conjecture. Draw conclusions only from premises, not assumptions. When your premises are made up of assumptions, your conclusion is probably wrong.

It's simple: don't assume and fact-check. Throwing out a fact you're not highly confident is true can and will come back to haunt you.

When you used to be in their position, appeal to that I used to nearly be on the opposite side of the political and religious spectrum that I am now. I changed my positions because I've learned the wrongs of my past positions. This gives me strength and confidence against an opponent who is arguing a position that I used to take myself.

I can confidently tell them that I empathize with their position because I used to stand in it. Then I can explain in much detail why I used to be in that position and why I was wrong for doing so. You might be surprised at how strong this argument can be. It can sometimes make the other person really want to hear you out.

So to conclude this write, you'll find that the better you use my advice for pursuing objective truth and the closer you get to it, the stronger you'll become when discussing anything with anyone, whether it's an argument, a discussion, or a debate.

Thanks for reading, Jeremy Burr